This sculpture is the first (and as yet only) piece of art that has ever made me weep. I came across it in my travels, and the reaction was instantaneous. The tears were coming before I even understood what it was I was looking at.

The tender love and comfort extending from the child as she reached out to touch her agonizing mother is intense. That flood of intensity was then made into a deluge of sadness as I realized the child was "invisible," the symbolic soul of a child this mother lost. Then, when I realized what the title of the sculpture actually was, I just about died of a broken heart.

Though this sculpture doesn't necessarily have to speak of the post-abortion grief many woman feel, that was what I took it for at first glance. Then I realized this grief could easily be felt by women who suffered miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, or even hysterectomies before fulfilling their vision of a family. This sculpture could also encapsulate the grief of a mother denied children through birth control, social pressures or infertility... maybe even a mother who lost her child to illness, violence or trauma.

Such ceaseless pain is perfectly juxtaposed with undescribable love. This ghost child is peaceful, seeking no solace for itself; she is only looking to comfort her stricken mother. The mother, overcome by her emotions, cannot feel the touch of this angel. She wants to... she yearns to... but she cannot.

Oh my heart. I'm actually writing this entry with my "window" scrolled up just enough that the image is not visible on my screen. I can do nothing but weep when I see it.

May the Lord grant us mercy for our transgressions against these innocent babes. May those who seek reconciliation find peace, and may the Holy Spirit alight in the hearts of those who don't understand that life begins at conception.

So one of the questions I pulled from the Question Box this week was:"Did God really make the earth like it says in the Bible or is the big bang true?"I laughed at this, because I'd been meaning to write up a blog on this very topic for MONTHS now. So many people accuse religion and science of being mortal enemies. In fact, religion and science typically go hand-in-hand. You just have to pay attention to how the pieces fit.The Creation Story of Genesis is my favorite example of this (followed closely by the Exodus from Egypt saga). When you tell someone that you believe the Bible speaks the truth, 9 times out of 10 they'll say "Oh, so you believe God made the world in 6 days, dinosaur bones were buried just to test us, and the first two humans were Adam and Eve? So the world is like, what... 20,000 years old to you, right?"Seriously... I have gotten into this discussion so many times it's laughable. I do enjoy it, though, because by the time I'm done explaining how the Judaic Creation Story fits within the Big Bang's framework, they're typically at a loss as to how to respond to my points. I'll go ahead and take this time to throw out as a quick reminder that the Genesis Creation Stories were finally written down WAY before Charles Darwin (father of evolution) or Georges Lemaître(father of the Big Bang Theory) existed.Anyway, pull out your Bible's and follow along. I'm going to give you the Cliff's Notes version.Remember... just because a scientist didn't theorize this until way later doesn't mean someone (namely, whoever penned down the creation story of Genesis in the first place) couldn't have come up with it first.

1st Day - "Light"

Think of the original "Big Bang" as the biggest explosion of light ever. Considering that EVERYTHING in the universe was crunched into a space the size of a pin-head and suddenly SURGED outwards at a rate incomprehensible to human minds, an incredible amount of energy / light was released, encompassing huge amounts of "space" in the process. Thus, a massive amount of light. MASSIVE.

2nd Day - "Separation of Waters"

Welp, since our early "Earth" was a boiling hot mess, most "water" was in the form of vapor. As the temperature cooled, water began to liquify, so we've now got liquid water on the earth as well as in the air as vapor. Poof - separation of waters.

3rd Day - "Dry land and plants"

Now that the earth had cooled even more, the crust was becoming visible beneath the water, and plate techtonics began to create the continents we know today. Obviously, now that the earth was emerging from the waters, plants were evolving and springing to life.So we're halfway there, and it's looking like the Bible and the Big Bang / Evolution are still saying the same processes took place. Let's move on down the line...

4th Day - "Sun and Moon"

Woo hoo... our two favorite celestial bodies are now in plain view of the Earth since the weather patterns have been properly established. The overpowering vapor / gas clouds have cooled enough to separate, and we have our first glimpse of the sun and moon. Plus, the kicker here is that if you follow popular theory about how the moon formed, another, smaller planet smashed into the Earth at about this "time" as well, thus marking even the moon's "creation."

5th (and 6th) Day(s) - "Animals" and "Humans"

Congratulations. We have now arrived at the fulfillment of our evolutionary process (up to this point, anyway). Animals... and obviously complex creatures like humans, came late to the game due to the time necessary for our development.

Once again, I'd like to remind everyone that Genesis was written way before "science" as we understand it even existed. That being said, it's incredible that these ancient authors were about as spot on as it gets regarding the evolution of the cosmos and life on Earth.Anyway, in conclusion, the Genesis creation story does fit in line with Big Bang / Evolution. And as for the "days" argument, MOST Christians (Catholics included) teach that the "days" translated from the Bible actually equate millennia, not literal "24-hr" days. They're referred to as "long days" when this particular story is taught to children. And considering 24-hr days are man-made products anyway, with the sun not showing up until "day 4" how exactly would one hold God to a standard that didn't technically exist until the middle of the "week?" Ha ha.

So see? Religion and science don't always have to be enemies. Sometimes they really are two sides of the same coin and can be very complimentary. This is one of those cases. I enjoy this example because it really does serve to bridge divide.